Entries Tagged 'Lion's Share' ↓

According to John Murtha today in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Who’s John Murtha, you may ask? Oh, he’s just the guy who’s been representing western Pennsylvania as a congressman for the PAST 17 TERMS! (h/t to hillbuzz)

Oh, and the stock market dropped another 763 points today.

Pre-Debate Talking Points

• Barack Obama won because he did not accidentally refer to himself as a socialist.
• Has anyone noticed how OLD and UNSTEADY McCain looks these days?
• Sarah Palin is as dumb as a rock. Which is just fine, since I’d do her.
• Barack Obama won because um, um, well look, isn’t George Bush an idiot?
• This debate was not a game-changer, because obviously Obama won, and he will win on November 4th. So for Barack Obama, it was simply one more hurdle for him to successfully bound (with those long, graceful legs — sigh.) Where was I? Oh yes, the debate was not a game changer, except it was for Barack because he is now 3 and 0 — a perfect winning record in the presidential debates.

Pumas, tune your cat channels to Puma United Radio (PURrrr!) tonight at 8pm eastern for the Pre-Debate Lion’s Share with Sheri, Riverdaughter, and me. We’ll try to present a pre-debate show that is a bit more in touch with reality. Click on the puma to listen live! Listener call-in 347-539-5420!

LISTEN TONIGHT TO “THE LION’S SHARE” WITH SHERI, RIVERDAUGHTER, AND MURPHY AT 8PM EASTERN. WE’LL BE DISCUSSING LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE (BRIEFLY!), ACORN FRAUD IN NEVADA, AND CHECKING IN WITH REAL DEMS ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS ON THE GROUND IN PA AND OH.

LISTENERS ENCOURAGED TO CALL IN AT 347-539-5420.

LISTEN LIVE HERE! 

Puma PAC is hosting a fundraiser for Heidi Li’s group to buy ad time during the World Series. Their group, Democrats for Principle Before Party, is already airing a NObama ad in Missouri. Let’s help them get this done in the last furious weeks before November 4th. Click HERE to help — every donation goes a LONG way, and THANK you!

Senate votes tonight on the Bailout Bill. Tune in and comment here during the debate and vote.

Senate bailout bill

The bill the Senate will vote on Wednesday will include measures that:

• Allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy up to $700 billion in bad mortgage-related securities and other bad assets
• Allow the Treasury Department to modify mortgage terms to help homeowners avoid foreclosure
• Permit the government to receive equity in companies it helps so taxpayers get a share of any future profits
• Restrict executive pay for companies aided by the program
• Create an independent oversight board to oversee the Treasury Department program

Source: Senate Banking Committee

Also, be sure to listen in to The Lion’s Share tonight on Puma United Radio (PURrrr!) at 8pm eastern. Sheri Tagg, Riverdaughter, and I will be discussing all the news of the day and week so far!

Call in at 347-539-5420

Listen LIVE HERE!

EVENING UPDATE 10/1/08

1. Join Puma PAC today and be a part of the largest, most organized Citizens Action Network in the Pumasphere. It’s Free, Easy, and Fun! You will receive all of our Super Secret PROWLS, and we NEVER EVER spam you, bug you for money, or share your information. Never, ever. Join us HERE!

2. Make Heidi Li’s new Denver Group viral. Send it far and wide. Post links to it everywhere you go on the intertubes. Contribute a few bucks to it if you can. Click HERE to watch the ad and get the link.

3. Contribute if you can to Puma PAC, so we can keep the lights on. Donations accepted HERE, and THANK you!

(thanks to Billie Jo for the sock puppet graphic!)

Katherine Q. Seelye in the NYT Caucus blog has a good preview of the debate tonight. She writes.

“A gambler by nature, and a more tactical debater than Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain took a high-stakes risk in trying to seize control of the debate two days ahead of time and throw Mr. Obama off-balance. It will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out tonight and how far Mr. McCain takes that kind of brinksmanship.

. . .

Not everyone is expecting sparks tonight. Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers, advises viewers not to expect the proverbial knock-out blow.

Despite some famous examples from history, truly decisive moments in debates are few and far between.

‘These candidates are very well prepped,” he says. “They are two self-possessed people, so the idea that one of them will blurt out some awful indiscretion or appear to be gobsmacked by the other is really unlikely.’

What is more probable, he says, is that viewers will be guided by subtle cues.

‘They’ll be watching the body language, the presentation, the tone of voice, the gestures,” he says. “They’ll be watching for McCain to borrow some of Obama’s academic approach and for Obama to find a little more of McCain’s fire.’”

 

Subtle cues? Sounds about right. Will Obama come across as arrogant and rambling as he did during his debates with Hillary? Will McCain come across as old and uninspiring?

What’s the Puma PAC conventional wisdom? Who is most likely to win tonight’s debate and why?

It’s Cocktail Hour Puma PAC! Pour yourself something tall and yummy, or short and cold, but pour yourself something, and get ready to debate the debate!

And please visit our new, permanent Puma PAC Emporium! All the Puma goodies your hearts desire — bumper stickers, coffee mugs, t-shirts, magnets and more! Please check it out and contribute if you can!

VISIT THE PUM PAC EMPORIUM HERE!

Tune in at 8pm eastern for The Lion’s Share with Sheri Tagg, Riverdaughter, and me. We’ll be discussing today’s surprise announcement by John McCain that he is suspending his campaigning until after the financial crisis is subdued — AND asking Obama to agree to a postponed debate. LOTS to talk about! Do call in, early and often!

Call In Line: 347-539-5420

Listen Live HERE!

TONIGHT! at 8pm eastern on Sheri Tagg’s Puma United Radio (PURrrrr!). Join Sheri, Riverdaughter, and me as we discuss the importance of voting downticket Democrats with that inimitable cockeyed optimist, Dr. Heidi Li Feldman. We’ll be taking your calls as always!

Call in early and often: 347-539-5420!

LISTEN LIVE HERE!

One of the things I focus on at my own blog is telling the stories of Women’s History. As a teacher, it became obvious to me early on that there was a lot of focus on black history and practically none on women’s history in grades K-12. In fact, I myself had to attend college to learn anything about this fascinating trajectory within history. I was 22 years old before I ever heard the names Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul. I swore then that I would do my best to educate as many women as I could about their own compelling history. With that in mind, I offer you the tale of one of the most controversial American women to ever grace our great nation. A leader in business and journalism, she came from a poor and questionable background, but she eventually made her way so high that she directly challenged the existing status quo. That’s what gadflies do.

Victoria Woodhull is a special case, and no other time in our history has been more appropriate to a lesson on her than right now. Maybe it’s because I share her wildness, having come from similar poor and roaming roots. Maybe I have an affinity for her because she was ahead of her time. Whatever the reason, she’s one of my all time favorite historical figures. She was controversial and courageous in so many ways. So indulge me a little if you will (it is Sunday after all), as I tell you the story of a poor girl exploited by her family, who then took on the world with her doe eyes, her rosy cheeks, and her mental acuity, and actually made some progress for women in America.

In her most controversial act, fearlessly, Woodhull declared her candidacy for U. S. President in 1872 (Equal Rights Party), and she had the money to support such a campaign, though not the vote. She was the first woman ever to run for that high office in America. But her origins were much different, and along the way, she left a trail broken barriers. She was nothing like Hillary Clinton, who has always played it straight every day of her life, but she was similarly defiant in the face of criticism, and every bit as accomplished and inspiring.

Victoria California Claflin was born in Homer, Ohio to a rough and ready family. Her father, Reuben, eventually took Victoria and her sister Tennessee on a traveling medicine show, exploiting them for “psychic healing.” Tennessee and Victoria grew very close during this tumultuous, uncertain time, and would remain together throughout their lives. At 15, Victoria married a doctor, Channing Woodhull, whose name she would keep even after they divorced ten years later. They had two children, Byron and Zulu.

Before the divorce, though, Woodhull had moved herself, her sister Tennessee, and her two children to New York City where she began to make connections among wealthy New Yorkers. One of these connections, a certain Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, helped finance Victoria in the very first female-run brokerage house in New York City in 1870. Calling it Woodhull, Claflin & Company, she proceeded to expand her empire from there, establishing the Woodhull & Claflin Weekly newspaper shortly thereafter. After success in their brokerage firm, the sisters were given the nicknames “Queens of Finance” and “Bewitching Brokers,” and they quickly earned a notorious reputation for the content of their newspaper. As if it were perfectly normal, the newspaper published articles on “free love,” divorce, sex outside of marriage, and, famously, was the first publication in America to publish the Communist Manifesto.

Of course, this entire time, rumors were swirling within the privileged NYC community (and beyond, due to tabloids) that the sisters were promiscuous or worse, prostitutes, and how their rhetoric was irreligious and immoral. But the sisters didn’t care. They recognized that any publicity was good publicity for women’s rights. And they wanted to be a part of that. Others within the women’s movement disagreed. They thought Woodhull and Claflin were bringing shame and notoriety to the cause of women’s rights, and that it would set it back. I contend that as a matter of history, the sisters were right. They set the margin, quite frankly. Give us rights, or you get more of this. And apparently, it worked, because by 1871, Victoria was giving a speech before Congress.

In fact, she preempted the opening of the National Women’s Suffrage Associations 3rd Annual Convention in Washington D.C., which immediately convened to go see her speak. There she argued such a revolutionary idea–that women already had the right to vote because woman was man’s equal, and thus covered under the Constitution–that many Suffragist leaders, including Stanton and Anthony, immediately invited her to represent their cause. Just as importantly, the argument was powerfully logical to several of the Committee members to which she delivered her speech. Thus, politics was the third realm, after business and publishing, that were traditionally men’s realms, that Victoria had taken on and won.

Reminder!

We have 51 Days to stop the DONC.

We will be mounting a weekend Fundraiser starting later today to raise funds for Canvassing and Outreach for our Protest of the Election. Get a jump now and donate this morning if you can, and THANK you! You can Contribute HERE!

Fair warning: Expect assumptions to be challenged in this post. It’s part of my gadfly approach. That approach is probably the result of my working class upbringing, filled as it was with all the right values propped up by all the wrong lies, as well as my eventual over-education (for my class), which provided me with strong research and reasoning skills, an instinct for critical thinking, and the ability to articulate well. What that education did not provide me with was unvarnished truth, only a means to pursue it. And so it is that we go about the business of peeling off the lies here, of locating that center amongst the petals of rhetoric. Whatever the cause, I am driven to seek core arguments, to push away the decorations and trappings of our discourse, and to try to assert what really matters.

What matters today is the roiling exposure of authoritarianism on the left. It is symptomatic of the Neoprogressive reach, which is itself symptomatic of the neoconservative reach. Most of those who self-identify with the left, and that includes disaffected Clinton supporters (DCS), would agree that one of the goals of the neocon faction was to drive the center into solidly conservative territory. Parties who succeed in getting their opposition to join them don’t have to compromise much, do they? As I have noted in many posts at P&L, this election season is littered with what must look like delicious irony from the outside. It hurts like hell from the inside, but those with no vested interested must be howling their asses off at how quickly things have flipped.

Sadly, the Democratic Party, long billed as the Party for Women, has attempted to drive the ultimate wedge to prevent a feminist revival. Ironically, while they have succeeded in their own party, they have failed in the culture at large. PUMA and the choices DCSs make November 4^th, as well as the attention they have gained and the momentum they have achieved have already constituted a revival among some women. The New Democratic Coalition, a.k.a. the Progressive Dude Nation, has already demonstrated  its tolerance for sexism and authoritarianism, as well hypocrisy, which they display so aggressively and to such effect when they pursue Republican strategies they were railing against four and eight years ago. And they continue to be oblivious to their own weaknesses. The consequence is fuel for that feminist revival.

A couple of days ago I published a post called More Politics of Fear. I hesitated to publish it at the time because it was critical of two of the more respected bloggers in the DCS-sphere (doesn’t quite have the PUMAsphere ring, does it?). I think it was a good post and people responded to it, but I hadn’t realized at the time I posted it that I wasn’t done fleshing my issues out. This morning I realized two things: a) I am hurt by the argument that anyone who casts a vote for John McCain can’t possibly be a progressive, and b) what troubles me most about the argument is not the hurt, but what the argument says about the infiltration of authoritarianism on the left. To argue that one’s identity is tied to one vote, like the helix in mortal coil, is to make an authoritarian argument. As I said in More Politics of Fear, it is akin to the old one-drop rule, or the structure of the Indian caste system. There’s also another institution that practices that kind of rhetoric; it’s called a church.

But there’s a softer side to this authoritarianism too. It is personified in the I-could-never-vote-for-a-Republican-but-I-can’t-blame-you DCS. I know a lot of people like this, and I don’t judge them either. Everybody owns their vote. But I must take this moment to ask you if you are of this mindset: Do you think the Democratic Party will suddenly feel like home November 5^th? Do you entertain fantasies that all of this madness will go away once the election is over?

How quickly we forget, sadly if we ever knew, the struggles of Stanton and Anthony, and Paul and Burns. Do you think that any one of those great, fearless women would have hesitated to cross a party line in the effort to secure a right for women? Did Alice Paul ever say, “I’m sorry Mr. Wilson, but you belong to a war-mongering party, so I can’t possibly petition and lobby you for relief”? And isn’t respect for and power for women, the opportunity for them, finally, a right worth securing? Women have the opportunity this year like no other to emerge as a super-constituency, to force both parties to notice and respond to us and some of our issues. It’s already working on one side of the aisle, even as it exposes deeply troubling sexist rhetoric on the left. That sexism will not magically disappear on November 4^th. If Obama wins, the beast will just be caged until he and his faction need it again. If he loses, it will get worse, much worse for a while, before it gets better.

If we are an Army of Monsters in the eyes of the left, why does it matter if you cast a protest vote for John McCain? Have you ever considered that a huge feminine swing toward McCain as a result of his Palin pick may be all that is necessary now to achieve that super-constituency? And have you considered what a valuable opportunity this might provide Americans to reform the Republican Party? What if we could tame those beastly factions within it, and jerk the Republican Party more to the mainstream? What delicious irony, right? I certainly think that’s a much more (and truly) progressive strategy than adopting wholesale corrupt Republican strategies to win, all the while hypocritically claiming to hold on to liberal values.

I’ve recently given some thought to this whole notion of labels. I said in Barry and The Neoprogs that progressive was a good word for them because all they cared about was naked progress in the form of winning. They weren’t concerned with the long-term in the least. Joseph Cannon over at Cannonfire recently articulated the better argument against progressives. To wit:

As readers know, I am careful to describe my politics as “liberal,” not progressive. What’s the difference?

ALL PROGRESSIVES LIE. ALL.

Bolding his. I think that’s generally, though not so stridently, true because I can understand the distinction now between a liberal and a progressive. It’s basically the difference between the Stevensonian and FDR coalitions Anglachel articulated so well a while ago. And the Stevensonian faction, make no mistake, has been the one consistently flirting with conservative values and candidates over the last 40 years. Now that the convention is over, though, it’s not just that faction that is expressing its authoritarian beliefs. Unwittingly infected themselves, some of those on the left, especially those who left working class culture in the dust when they succeeded in bettering themselves, but who have preserved an affection for it, are now spouting these ridiculous purity arguments, either for others or for themselves.

As a Midwestern Democrat-turned-independent, a voter in a swing state planning to vote McCain/Palin, I have to ask myself, are we going to be expected to do the heavy lifting this November, even as we get no credit, and suffer ridicule for it? In case you weren’t aware, in the wake of the sham Convention, you have only two choices: Obama or Nobama.

If Obama wins, his faction gets credentialed and their values get adopted in the DP, but if Obama loses, and regardless of what happens in the Republican Party, none of that other stuff happens in the DP. This election has already proven to be the strangest in my lifetime and a lot longer, and I really can’t believe anyone in any red or blue state can feel certain they know how their state will go. How can they just kick back and rest assured that they won’t have to violate any personal values to achieve their goal of Nobama, without even trying to self-reflect on whether or not the value that argues all Republicans are evil  is even rational? Leave it to the close-minded hicks in those swing states, right? Ain’t that the mother of all ironies?

Note: Whatever minor issues I may have with Anglechel over this particular rhetorical aside, I still think she is the best political analyst in the DCS-sphere by far. I do not speak for Murphy or other PUMAs either, only for myself.

Originally posted at Peacocks and Lilies. (I thought y’all would like it too)

Reminder!

We have 52 Days to stop the DONC.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to Sheila Jackson Lee yesterday. I will post the final tally later this morning.

We will be mounting a weekend Fundraiser starting later today to raise funds for Canvassing and Outreach for our Protest of the Election. Get a jump now and donate this morning if you can, and THANK you! You can Contribute HERE!

Whaddya think folks?

Please post instances of sexism against Sarah Palin that you have found.

Holy shit, sorry folks, but Rudy Giuli-freaking-ani just asked, “How DARE they ask whether a woman with children is able to lead?”

Holy Smokes, what has the Democratic Party come to?